"DesktopBSD 1.6RC3 for AMD64 is now available for download via BitTorrent and from our mirror sites. It includes several improvements made since the release of 1.6RC3 for i386, including: better performance by disabling SMP on single core/processor computers, fixed installation on disks with special partition names, inclusion of the FreeBSD ports collection on the DVD, and more."

Currently DesktopBSD is generally considered as a less known (or even worse) competitor to PC-BSD, DesktopBSD is only considered as a 'same as PC-BSD' but packages are installed in diffrent way.

The good road forDesktopBSD will be abandon KDE and offer Gnome AND Xfce to choose after isntallation (focus on GTK2 desktop), this along with their tools would be a TRUE alternative to PC-BSD and people would have an alternative to PC-BSD which is bundled with KDE.

"Currently DesktopBSD is generally considered as a less known (or even worse) competitor to PC-BSD, DesktopBSD is only considered as a 'same as PC-BSD' but packages are installed in diffrent way."

Sadly, this is what I'd say when I get asket about what's the difference between DesktopBSD and PC-BSD. But in other words, DesktopBSD is more "hand in hand with" the underlying FreeBSD OS because it does not introduce a new kind of package installers, along with new directories rooted in / that contain the PBI content.

"The good road forDesktopBSD will be abandon KDE and offer Gnome AND Xfce to choose after isntallation (focus on GTK2 desktop), this along with their tools would be a TRUE alternative to PC-BSD and people would have an alternative to PC-BSD which is bundled with KDE."

I would really honour this change. I'm tired of KDE already. Please don't get me wrong: KDE is a fine thing for newbies and average home users, but it is definitely not designed for me. After installing PC-BSD, my first move would be to deinstall nearly everything because I do not use any KDE application. Gnome, on the other hand, provides a desktop system that appeals a bit more to me, but still, I like XFCE and WindowMaker a lot. For those who prefer a manually tailored BSD system, "plain" FreeBSD would be the better choice, I think; this provides a way to have only those software installed that you really really want, and not what others think you will need. Integration of the underlying OS into the setup mechanisms of Gnome would be a rewarding task, so you don't need to rely on KDE setup tools only if you feel you need GUI tools to administer your system.

And please, re-read the paragraph above: I don't want to start a flame war KDE vs. Gnome or say "KDE is for dummies". It's just not for me, honestly. :-)

You are living proof you are not the targeted audience for DesktopBSD and PC-BSD and you explained everybody in detail why.

Use FreeBSD instead, configure your machine the way you like and help FreeBSD.

The only thing you, vermaden and all those other dudes is to suggest starting a distri hell in FreeBSD too like Linux. And after all you have 100 different FreeBSD-distris with 100 window managers. If you don't believe try to name all Buntus within a minute.

The only thing you will realize someday is

a) wasted time and resources that would be better spent on easing the installation, upgrading, configuring etc. of any of the 100 given windows managers in 1 distri or what you like to name it.

b) your time would be better spent helping FreeBSD to improve the Ports system rather than bundling wm after wm with the same FreeBSD kernel etc. It doesn't matter if you like Ports, packages, pbi or anything else: You totally rely on the hard work of the FreeBSD Ports committers and maintainers and they themselves rely on the work of all those people writing and maintaining that applications.

For each FreeBSD distri you need at least one person to do it. What would be better: 300 Ports committers instead of 200 or 200 Ports committers and 100 persons doing their distri thing? You know the answer.

If for example pbi is capable of installing a given wm with a click the only thing you gain with a specialized distri for wm X is one click. And if you don't like pbi you can use the package manager in DesktopBSD. Uh, that's only one click too... And if you don't like both you can type pkg_add -r $wm. That was easy? Uh, its BSD.

Completely rewrite all the Qt-tools in gtk? For what please? You want DesktopBSD to throw away years of work for exactly no gain in efficiency, features etc.? Uh, we will have a lot more users when we proudly announce it on our website... And which Newbie knows the difference between gtk and Qt? You don't think the same amount of work would be better spent improving the existing work in Qt? Please think twice.

Ask an Apple user if he knows the diffrence between PPC or Intel or the difference between a Mach kernel or a BSD kernel. He will tell you he has an computer and he wants to browse, mail etc. Get the message please.

And if you like Gnome or XFCE that much you can easily install it via Ports, packages oder .pbi in PC-BSD (don't know if there are pbi for it).

I think that this is a good idea for DesktopBSD to office the Gnome environment, while PC-BSD offers the KDE environment since these two are aimed primarily for new users to experience BSD. Personally... this would bring them both more exposure to the masses.

Peter Hofer started the development of DesktopBSD and the according tools in KDE, about one year before the advent of PCBSD. Furthermore Gnome isn't really a mature desktop environment in FreeBSD. It's a hell to maintain (you can sometimes hear similar things from Linux distros). So if you like it, install it.